Originally posted by DragonFriend
What's that got to do with the Bible being accurate or not?
The topic was the apparent conflict between Gen1 and Gen2.
Stick with the sub-thread, man.

DF

Personally, I believe the sub-thread was 'is the biblical creation account flawed?' Go back a page - that's what we were all talking about.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a moron!! Penquins and ostriches have "half legs, half wings"!!!!!! I won't even waste time with anything but a LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So basically you are now agreeing with the evolutionists that things are in a constant state of flux, and that intermediate forms do exist. Also, the technical term for things that used to have an evolutionary benefit in a predecessor of a modern species, but no longer confer that advantage (for example Ostrich wings (although they are used to some extent like aerofoils by the ostrich)), is 'redundancy'.

So basically you are now agreeing with the evolutionists that things are in a constant state of flux, and that intermediate forms do exist.

I never disagreed, I accept it is a viable theory. As you may recall the debate was about the order of events in the scripture, and whether birds existed before animals.

Also, the technical term for things that used to have an evolutionary benefit in a predecessor of a modern species, but no longer confer that advantage (for example Ostrich wings (although they are used to some extent like aerofoils by the ostrich)), is 'redundancy'.

Great, please inform marauder of this.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Such limited thinking by you all. This is God we're dealing with, people. Does anybody here know the exact sequence that things happend?
Here is one possibility:
God created Earth, barren and lifeless
God created man's soul (who we truly are)
God created plants and animals
God created man's body and put man on Earth

Would that not satisfy both ...[text shortened]... make many assumptionis when reading Genesis, I just made a few different assumptions.

DF

So much for your being a literalist.

In Genesis 2, it says that 'the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and
blew into his nostrils the breath of life.' This clearly indicates body and soul. And it
clearly indicates it before we see vegetation or animal life.

In Genesis 1, man is not created until after these vegetation is brought forth or animals
are created.

Contradiction. Your theory does not match up with reading the text that's there. Even if
I accept your bizarre reading (which doesn't make any sense in regards to being made
out of the clay of the ground), man is still created before animals, which is in
contradiction with Genesis 1.

If you are going to this far -- to stretch the literal word to the point where it communicates
something entirely different than what it says -- why not admit that it's an aetiological fairy tale
meant to demonstrate something about the nature of humankind?

What's the real point of the story? History? Obviously not, otherwise it wouldn't have a
contradiction. The point of the story is to communicate something deeper than the corporeal,
which will pass away; it is to tell us about how we, under the simplest of circumstances, are
prone to disobeying those rules that God imposed upon us for our own good.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Find me an evolutionist that says penguins have 'half wings.' Or
ostriches. That their wings serve a different function, or none at all
does not mean that they are not physiologically whole (because,
a glance at their skeleton indicates that they are).

I tried to point you in the direction of 'half things' so you could try
to discuss evolution with ...[text shortened]...
snakes -- are a product of selection, a clearly-defined evolutionary
process.

Nemesio

Nemesio, if an animal is slowly loosing an appendage through evolution, that means that the appendage is slowly going away, as in shrinking. Ostrich wings are smaller than they used to be according to evolutionists, so they are “redundant” as Scott pointed out.

What did you think I meant? That their wings break in half when they are born? If their wings are half the size they used to be, then they have half wings.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Nemesio, if an animal is slowly loosing an appendage through evolution, that means that the appendage is slowly going away, as in shrinking. Ostrich wings are smaller than they used to be according to evolutionists, so they are “redundant” as Scott pointed out.

What did you think I meant? That their wings break in half when they are born? If their wings are half the size they used to be, then they have half wings.

Chess Express: Animals do have half legs and half wings. Take penguins and ostriches for example

You didn't claim that ostriches had "half wings" (which isn't true anyway; the wing is fully formed) you claimed it was a "half leg, half wing". I'm perfectly aware what "redundant" means and it doesn't mean half of one thing and half of another. That was your claim which was and is idiotic.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
What did you think I meant? That their wings break in half when they are born? If their wings are half the size they used to be, then they have half wings.

Honestly, I had no clue what you possibly could have meant. The term 'half wing'
is a meaningless one and certainly isn't part of the evolutionist vernacular.

Both animals have wings that are fully formed. They are different than wings
you find on pigeons or blue jays, but they are whole.

Does a one-year old baby have 'half legs' because they smaller than an adults?
Give me a break. Perhaps you didn't intend the term to have the effect it did because
in your mind it made a lot of sense, but it was and remains wholly unintelligible in
any sort of evolutionary discussion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Honestly, I had no clue what you possibly could have meant. The term 'half wing'
is a meaningless one and certainly isn't part of the evolutionist vernacular.

Both animals have wings that are fully formed. They are different than wings
you find on pigeons or blue jays, but they are whole.

Does a one-year old baby have 'half legs' because the ...[text shortened]... was and remains wholly unintelligible in
any sort of evolutionary discussion.

Nemesio

As an aside, Nemesio, if you know; does ANY branch of Judaism insist that the Genesis Garden of Eden story is literally true in all its details?

Originally posted by no1marauder
As an aside, Nemesio, if you know; does ANY branch of Judaism insist that the Genesis Garden of Eden story is literally true in all its details?

How bold an act: quizzing the Quizzmaster!

Originally posted by Nemesio
So much for your being a literalist.

In Genesis 2, it says that 'the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and
blew into his nostrils the breath of life.' This clearly indicates body and soul. And it
clearly indicates it before we see vegetation or animal life.

In Genesis 1, man is not created until after these vegetation is brought for ...[text shortened]... e
prone to disobeying those rules that God imposed upon us for our own good.

Nemesio

I think you are assuming too much. Does a soul have nostrils?
You are assuming that because God used clay He created a physical body. If He created the world out of nothing, could He not create a soul out of clay?

I'm not saying my sequence is correct. What I'm saying is that we don't know the exact steps taken and therefore we assume certain things (based on our limited human knowledge) and those assumptions may not be correct. But instead of giving God the benefit of the doubt, it is stated that the Bible is contradicting itself. I'm saying to don't know enough to make that statement with any surety.

DF

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How bold an act: quizzing the Quizzmaster!

Only the Self Appointed Warrior Against Prejudice and Bigotry would dare.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Honestly, I had no clue what you possibly could have meant. The term 'half wing'
is a meaningless one and certainly isn't part of the evolutionist vernacular.

Both animals have wings that are fully formed. They are different than wings
you find on pigeons or blue jays, but they are whole.

Does a one-year old baby have 'half legs' because t it was and remains wholly unintelligible in
any sort of evolutionary discussion.

Nemesio

Honestly, I had no clue what you possibly could have meant. The term 'half wing'
is a meaningless one and certainly isn't part of the evolutionist vernacular. Give me a break. Perhaps you didn't intend the term to have the effect it did because in your mind it made a lot of sense, but it was and remains wholly unintelligible in any sort of evolutionary discussion.

This is understandable. I was using one of marauders terms.

Both animals have wings that are fully formed. They are different than wings
you find on pigeons or blue jays, but they are whole. Does a one-year old baby have 'half legs' because they smaller than an adults?

If they were fully formed ostriches would be flying. Baby’s legs eventually let them walk. What exactly are you saying? That evolutionists don’t think that ostrich wings are fading away?

Originally posted by The Chess Express

If they were fully formed ostriches would be flying.

Why must this be true?

Chimpanzees have fully formed hands but they don't play the banjo.

It takes more than hands to play the banjo. It takes more than wings to fly.